Notices received by Windstream agents earlier this month are a wake-up call to the channel. The terms and conditions of most channel agreements are subject to change, and change is on the mind of many vendors, service providers, and carriers that are increasingly fatigued by low-performing partners.

Windstream is an extreme example of the expanding trend among vendors to impose new, stiffer requirements for entering and maintaining standing in their channel programs. Earlier this month, the bankruptcy-embroiled carrier notified partners of new sales requirements for maintaining their revenue sharing and annuity rates.

Essentially, the notice said this: Perform or face reductions in benefits, or – worse – get cut off entirely.

Many vendors are exploring the idea of tightening their partnership requirements and limiting the number of partners that receive support and benefits. Others are even considering shutting off their channel programs except to a few that meet minimum participation requirements.

Channel chiefs believe religiously in the 80/20 rule, which posits that 80% of channel revenue flows through the top 20% of partners. The reality, though, is that the channel operates at ratios more akin to 90/10 or even 95/5.

While many partner organizations believe they’re doing well based on their internal metrics, they often don’t look very interesting to vendors. Even partners growing at 15% to 20% annually and generating profits of 20% or higher won’t have high value to their vendors unless they’re moving seven figures’ worth of products and services.

The bane of traditional solution providers are the direct market resellers (also known as large account resellers). To meet their numbers and goals, vendors often turn to the CDWs, SHIs, and others of their ilk to deliver the goods. DMRs/LARs can produce because they have massive sales engines and databases that turn revenue generation into sport. Solution providers bristle when they see sales go to DMRs, but vendors turn that way only because other partners can’t produce.

As pressure grows on vendors to generate growth and reduce cost, they’re looking to wring more out of their existing partners by increasing expectations and requirements. They see setting new minimum sales unit and revenue requirements as a means of weeding out the underperformers, lowering the cost to serve, and channeling more business in the direction of capable partners.

Another factor driving vendors to explore closed and highly managed channels is customer expectations. According to Accenture, 62% of business-to-business buyers expect a simplified technology sales process similar to what they get in their consumer activities. According to Microsoft research, nearly two-thirds of B2B buyers changed brands because of bad customer services and buying experiences.

Vendors recognize that partners are an integral part of the go-to-market chain, and less engaged partners run the risk of disenfranchising customers. Hence, restricting channel participation to only the most qualified, committed, and engaged partners is a means of improving customer experience and mitigating poor account engagement.

Now, what about the cost to serve? Some people in the channel say the long tail – the large pool of small, largely opportunistic partners – are more profitable since they don’t have access to vendor resources or receive deep discounts. The long tail’s sales are highly profitable even if they’re in low average sale prices and volumes.

There’s much truth to the notion that the long tail is highly profitable, but it’s also unpredictable. Partners in the long tail are opportunistic and transient. Vendors often find that they disrupt that low-cost, high-profit paradigm whenever they try to stimulate more activity among long-tail partners. Further, all that automation, self-service support, and distribution management wrapped around the long tail come with hidden costs. Vendors speculate that eliminating the long tail will channel business to higher-performing partners that will deliver larger deals and persistent engagements.

Windstream is making changes to its partnership contracts with a gun to its head and under the scrutiny of a bankruptcy court judge. Chances are, though, that Windstream won’t be the only vendor tightening and restricting its channel programs. As the market continues to look for more ways to cut costs, vendors will push more of the benefits and support to partners that commit to their vision and productivity expectations.

Larry Walsh is the CEO of The 2112 Group, a business strategy and research firm serving the technology industry, and the publisher of Channelnomics, a news and analysis site for technology vendors, distributors, and partners. Follow Larry on Twitter at @lmwalsh2112.